Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (42)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1306
· 4 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES. HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLAC…”
|
CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … | Furman | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1057
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CEDURES FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2025. HB1057 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREAR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT … | R. Scott Richardson | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1178
Act 993
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1178 R. Scott Richardson CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE VIOLATIO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW … | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1178 is now Act 993 |
|
HB1434
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1434 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1473
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1504
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING,…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1551
Act 485
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1551 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRIMINAL ABORTION; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRIMINAL ABORTION; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF COERCED CRIMINAL … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1551 is now Act 485 |
|
HB1563
Act 356
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE OFFENSE OF COERCED CRIMINAL ABORTION BY MEANS OF FRAUD. HB1563 Gazaway TO ADD A FELONY OFFENSE THAT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINI…”
|
TO ADD A FELONY OFFENSE THAT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF RESTRICTED RELEASE FELONY WITH … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1563 is now Act 356 |
|
HB1579
Act 357
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…R SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP. HB1579 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEX OFFENDER REASSESSME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEX OFFENDER REASSESSMENT; AND TO PROHIBIT AN INCARCERATED PERSON FROM … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1579 is now Act 357 |
|
HB1603
Act 365
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TED PERSON FROM BEING ELIGIBLE FOR RISK LEVEL REASSESSMENT. HB1603 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN CIRCUIT COURT. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1603 is now Act 365 |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TALLMENT PAYMENTS BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN CIRCUIT COURT. HB1611 Gonzales TO CREATE THE GAME FOWL FARM REGISTRATION AND PRES…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1615
Act 677
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677 |
|
HB1624
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. | Gazaway | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1628
Act 367
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1628 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AN EXTENDED POST-CONVIC…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AN EXTENDED POST-CONVICTION NO CONTACT ORDER; AND TO ADD SEXUAL … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1628 is now Act 367 |
|
HB1629
Act 368
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RT MAY ISSUE AN EXTENDED POST- CONVICTION NO CONTACT ORDER. HB1629 Gazaway TO PERMIT A RETIRING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO BE AWA…”
|
TO PERMIT A RETIRING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO BE AWARDED HIS OR HER SERVICE FIREARM UPON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1629 is now Act 368 |
|
HB1630
Act 599
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Y TO BE AWARDED HIS OR HER SERVICE FIREARM UPON RETIREMENT. HB1630 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAPITAL MURDER; AND TO…”
|
TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1630 is now Act 599 |
|
HB1641
Act 600
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE … | Clowney | Notification that HB1641 is now Act 600 |
|
HB1644
Act 370
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1644 Dalby CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE APPOIN…”
|
CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE APPOINTED AS A SPECIAL JUDGE; TO CLARIFY THAT … | Dalby | Notification that HB1644 is now Act 370 |
|
HB1648
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTM…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL … | S. Meeks | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1661
Act 371
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. HB1661 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING STATE DISTRICT COURTS; T…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING STATE DISTRICT COURTS; TO ELIMINATE THE OBLIGATION OF CITIES AND … | Dalby | Notification that HB1661 is now Act 371 |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY. HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … | K. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1676
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG AND CASTRATION, STERILIZATION, OR MUTILATION OF A MINOR. HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
|
TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … | Long | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
SB244
Act 275
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB244 J. Bryant CONCERNING POSTPONEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT C…”
|
CONCERNING POSTPONEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT; AND TO PERMIT A SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB244 is now Act 275 |
|
SB260
Act 277
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB260 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF COU…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF COURT FINES, FEES, OR COSTS AFTER DEFAULT. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB260 is now Act 277 |
|
HB1033
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ALTIES. Page 2 of 3 DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1136
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…DRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS. HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1141
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1148
Act 597
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…RIOUS Richardson MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS C…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT … | Vaught | Notification that HB1148 is now Act 597 |
|
HB1430
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1431
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1433
Act 828
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION … | K. Moore | Notification that HB1433 is now Act 828 |
|
HB1481
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…GING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1511
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1511 Beaty Jr. TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | Beaty Jr. | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1518
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…D THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S SUBPOENA POWER. HB1518 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CREATING, DISTRIBUTING, P…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CREATING, DISTRIBUTING, POSSESSING, OR VIEWING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE-GENERATED MATTER DEPICTING SEXUALLY … | S. Meeks | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1529
Act 827
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…TTER DEPICTING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT INVOLVING A CHILD. HB1529 S. Meeks AN ACT CONCERNING DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL OF A SE…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1529 is now Act 827 |
|
HB1535
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1553
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…IOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM. HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
|
TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1668
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL … | Bentley | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
and public health, and they had to tell me where it was even located. So I'm gonna go run and do that, but you're incapable hands and um with that Vice Chair Underwood, you're in charge. OK, the first bill on
Speaker 5
0:36
the agenda is House Bill 1306 is representative Furman. You ready to run your bill?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
0:49
Representative, if you identify yourself and you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you Mr.
Speaker 10
0:59
Chair and committee, and with your permission, I'd like to have Larry Page with the
Speaker 12
1:01
Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council to join me at the table. That'd be fine if you could just uh identify yourself for the record. Thank you. Yeah
Larry Page
Unverified
1:25
Feel like a Three Stooges comedy here. My name is Larry Page with
Speaker 21
1:35
the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council. And I did forget to introduce myself. Tony Furman, State Rep District 82. Thank you Mr. Chair and committee. HB 1306 is a bill to help our churches and other houses of worship with immunity if they use a volunteer church security team, which most churches do. The average shirt size is about 80 to 100 people.
And they rely on volunteers in their congregations to serve the security needs of the church. Your bigger churches that have You know, deep bank accounts can pay to have, you know, police officers or higher like security firms to come provide security, but for the churches that rely on members of their congregation. A lot of Pastors and leaders and church staff have reached out to me and say that they're afraid to even use the security they have if they need it because they're afraid of being sued. So what this bill does is gives them immunity if they're volunteer team has to act as long as there's some kind of training in
place that they have to, you know, complete to be on the security team. I left that language open for the church to decide what the training should look like because every church is different and has different needs, you know, a rural church of, you know, 50 people. is going to have a different need than one in my district that's right off the interstate. Different needs require different training. So for that reason I left it up to them. um, I'll turn it over to Larry if he wants to add anything to it. That's pretty much the gist of what the bill does. You know, the question may arise
Speaker 24
2:58
why this bill and why now. Uh, I have the occasion often to consult with churches on church security, uh, oftentimes in context is armed security, but not always, you know, churches do have security that aren't armed. So, but I try to give them some guidance. I don't encourage armed security, nor do I discourage it. What I, my interest is if they're going to do it, if they're going to have armed security, I want them to follow the law and know what the requirements are. And so that is my uh my main concern.
Someone once said, you know, the only constant is change, and we've certainly seen a change regarding uh issues of church, churches and violence, um. Uh, just a couple of statistics just to sort of put this in the in the frame of reference. Since 1999 through 2017. That's the latest figures I have. Church violence incidents have increased 1980%.
In 10 years alone between 2007 and 2017, there were, there was a 500% increase in violent acts at, at churches. Now, A lot of people will recognize the uh The name first Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas in November of 2017. Uh, a disgruntled former member who was mad at his ex-wife and her mother, who tended that church.
Went into the church and opened fire, uh, and I guess he stayed until his magazines were all empty because he killed 26 people. And sent 2 to the hospital. There was no opposition, no armed or unarmed security. They took steps. Now, I've got page after page of incidents. I'm not gonna read those to you. That's probably, uh, enough, but the incidence of church violence and threats has increased substantially, and that's why
this bill and now Uh, people have asked why are churches targets? Well, there's a couple of reasons. First of all, they're often seen as target rich environments. It's a people sitting, you know, in pews and, and not moving. Uh, also, uh, there's increased hostility. toward people of faith, I think that's undeniable, uh, and then. Often the bad actors think of
churches as gun-free zones. Uh, the one in so and Springs was gun-free, and he could take his time in mowing down those members. So the, the, that's the issue that has has driven this sort of thing. Um, as a representative Forman indicated some churches are small, uh, many, most churches are small. They're not gonna be able to hire security. Sometimes they enjoy having a, a law enforcement officer as a member or retired law enforcement who
can provide some security. But most churches don't. And what I found is the fear of liability has a chilling effect on people stepping up in churches to provide security. Uh, so that is the purpose in this. bill to relieve some of that angst, uh, that people have citing whether or not To, uh, to provide security, it's important to note this bill doesn't create any new rights. The immunity that this bill provides is already in existence
in Arkansas law. Uh, churches enjoy charitable immunity. And a lot of people think that's a statutory, uh, crea creature, it's not, uh, charitable immunity for churches is a common law doctrine that was adopted by the judiciary and Arkansas has applied it and utilized it since the 1850s, so it is stood the test of time. Uh, so that is already in law. Uh, volunteers at churches and
other nonprofits who provide security are protected by the 1987. Volunteer immunity Act. Uh, and so the coverage is already there and people say, well, why this bill? Well, the bill does a couple of numbers, a couple of things. First of all, if the Arkansas Supreme Court, like most states in this nation choose to abolish charitable immunity, then it's gone. This bill would codify that would establish that charitable immunity, uh, and keep it intact. um.
The volunteers, as I said, are protected under the voluntary immunity Act. But what this bill does is it tightens up that those requirements, it, it requires the church to do uh uh 3 important things here. It requires training for the security people. The the security people must undergo the training and uh only then is immunity granted and only then if there is no uh grossly negligent, reckless.
intentional criminal act performed by the security. If they do that, they're on their own. There's no immunity for them. So the bill simply, you know, reaffirms, restates and strengthens the protections that already exist for churches, excuse me, and they're volunteers, um, that's in a nutshell what the bill does. I think
Speaker 20
8:28
it's a good bill. I'll be glad to respond to any questions. Thank you for your presentation committee. Are there any questions?
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
8:41
you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I promise no gosh is, and this is not a gotcha, I promise, Representative Furman, but can you just talk me through a little bit more of the thought process on the training because I appreciate you saying that this requires training when there isn't any training currently required, but this language is super, super open-ended. It just says, provide a training, um. The way that I read this, that could be as simple as do you promise to
Do a good job and the person says yes, and that's all that's really required, um, and I understand why you want to give churches flexibility depending on their needs, but why aren't there any guardrails here? Minimum hours required or some sort of documentation that the training has happened. I mean, anything
Speaker 24
9:29
that gives us some idea that was sort of one of my, one of my reactions to the bill. Here's how I would answer that, uh, use a hypothetical. Let's say that, uh, that I'm injured at church by some security persons, ordinary.
Negligence, not, uh, not gross negligence or criminal act or anything like that. And so I allege an injury and, and the suit is filed, uh, and my attorney is going to represent me and what he's gonna try to show if he thinks the training was inadequate, then that's a fact question for the trial of fact and if the trial of fact does find that the training is inadequate. No immunity. No coverage. And if I'll,
Speaker 21
10:11
I'll add to that. The reason why I left it vague
was on purpose so the churches can, you know, create training that suits their needs. Like there's a church in my district, for example, who's head of the volunteer security team is a former Green Beret uh soldier, and he teaches classes for the Arkansas
Speaker 32
10:27
State Police. So he is more than qualified to, you know, lead the training team and provide the training. Um The other part of that too is is the the cost barrier, you know, these smaller churches that can't afford to hire security. Um, you know, some people suggested well have them be certified security officers.
Well, that's a lot to ask for somebody that's trying to volunteer to serve. Like once a week, maybe twice a week, or if they're on a rotation, if they have enough volunteers, could even be once or twice a month. So you want somebody to pay to go get a certification that they're not going to get paid to use. That's, that could be a barrier. I was trying to give churches the ability to use the volunteers
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
11:07
that are willing. Thank you. And a follow up. Thank you, and I appreciate that. I just looking at the language, I'm worried because um I don't know that this actually
gives a trier of fact. Any way to find that the training was inadequate because the language of the bill doesn't say the church requires adequate training, there's no adjective there, right? It just says the church requires training. So I guess it just, it seems to me as if any training, adequate or inadequate is enough to satisfy that bit and give the person immunity and that makes me a little bit nervous. So can you just talk a little bit more about why you think the training needs to be adequate. If I'm missing something, I'm just curious. Well, I think it needs to be what? Adequate adequate, sorry, that
was the answer was that the training has to be adequate, um, but I don't see that
Speaker 36
11:54
in the bill. OK, maybe I, I didn't put the word in there. It's just In my
Speaker 32
11:59
mind, you know, if you're creating a security team, you're going to want to be adequate. You don't want to end up in court and say, yeah, our training is, you know, once a year we watch Rambo, like it's
Speaker 38
12:11
not gonna hold up. OK. Represent more, uh, you're kind of question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Representative Furman, um, regarding the whole
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
12:19
training issue, could you explain what Current training, certifications exist that these churches may use, um. And as a follow up to that, if there is a question of inadequate training, what do you think that would look like? That might be a
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
12:41
of your question? What type of training certifications currently exist at churches
used today and in your mind, what would, what
Speaker 24
12:50
would you consider to be inadequate training? Well, the training is all over the board. Some do, I'll be honest, virtually none. Some do quite adequate. But they, there are a number of companies now security companies that offer training, many of the churches avail themselves of that. Uh, some, again, basically do very little. The good thing about this bill, and I, I notwithstanding the fact that there's not any guardrails for the for the training, but
notwithstanding that, the fact that the church has to require training and give training in order to enjoy uh immunity is a real incentive for them to do it, but now, what does adequate training look like? Um, You know, clearly if you use a, a company like Strata Stratago is is is is a company that comes to mind. They're probably the gold standard on church. If you uh organization like that to train, that's more than adequate, uh, but there's a number of variables that
churches would use in doing that, so, but clearly, could there be an adequate training? Yes. Yeah, but again, if there is, and that's determined by the trier of fact, the uh the immunity doesn't
Speaker 45
14:03
apply. Represent us, she for question. Thank
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
14:14
you, Mr. Chair. Representative Farmer, you and I have had a discussion and I just, I just kind of want to follow up on that discussion,
you know, in 2015, uh, I passed legislation that gave uh civil liability protection to anyone in the state in the use of deadly force as long as they were justified within the confines of our self-defense law within this state. And uh I in no way would this, does this undermine that that 2nd Amendment right that we passed in 2015 giving civil liability protection. Would you, would you care to discuss that? Yeah,
Speaker 10
14:55
thank you for the question. I actually had the Attorney General. review your, your bill
Speaker 21
15:00
that you passed and compare it to this bill and see if there's any, you know, conflictions, and he said that there's
Speaker 32
15:07
not, so it doesn't affect that because this is so narrowly crafted just to apply to
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
15:15
volunteer church security teams. Follow up. You recognized. One last question, Representative, in the last, uh, paragraph of your bill, it talks about if the security personnel
there at the church if they're uh I'm trying to look at your bill now exactly how it was worded. Who makes that decision, whether it was neglect or whether it was intentional. I mean, it says all of that, but, uh, what's the final decision? who determines in your bill whether or not they acted within the authority that's given to them under the uh civil
liability protection. Who makes that decision in this
Speaker 10
15:58
bill? I would think either a judge or a jury if the charge were to get sued, then the judge
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
16:05
or jury would decide if they acted recklessly or not. OK. And I wish I'd have brought this to your attention earlier, but probably uh I know in the bill that I ran, if there was no criminal charges filed in the prosecutor did not pursue criminal charges against the person that used the deadly force, then obviously there would be civil immunity, so I'm just trying to make sure that
that same language that was used in that is also used here for that protection, or to, uh, you know, To make sure that if someone does misuse that that that whatever knew that they would would be pursued.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
16:46
your question, sorry. That's OK. Um. In other words, if someone uses deadly force. And they were neglect in doing so.
Does it go to the prosecutor? Does your bill direct that to the prosecutor if the criminal charges filed against that individual, that security personnel in the church. If, if, if there's charges filed against them, then The civil immunities still. Apply That I, I don't know. I don't think the bill specifies
Speaker 21
17:18
where like it goes if it gets challenged. It's, I would
Speaker 32
17:21
assume it goes to the court and it gets sorted out there, right? I'm asking, yeah, not
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
17:32
necessarily, yeah, and, and I don't want to get into debate with you about it, but no, no, it has to be in clear precise language that says, uh, you have civil immunity in here and civil protection for the security personnel at the church. The question is this if they are if they are within the confines of the of the self-defense law within the state of Arkansas, who will make that decision is to prosecuting attorney then should make the decision whether or not criminal charges will be filed against. That individual, if they were
in, in, if they uh if they were in neglect or, you know, they didn't properly follow the uh the self-defense law code that we have here in the state, then they would not be subject to immunity according to this bill, is that, is that right or is that wrong? Honestly, I don't know how to answer that question. OK. Are
Speaker 52
18:20
there any other questions from the committee? Seeing other questions,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
18:26
um, we do have a couple of people signed up to speak for the bill the first person we have is Mr.
Michael Thompson. Can I, can I close real quick?
Speaker 12
18:38
We can come back to you to close after we take comments in public. Thank you. Are
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
18:49
you Mr. Thompson? Yes, you may come to the table, and if you wouldn't mind identifying yourself with the record.
Michael Thompson
Unverified
19:06
Good morning. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to come and speak, uh, to the committee this morning. My name is Michael Thompson. Uh, I'm a retired FBI special agent, retired out of the Little Rock field office. I'm currently, uh, Volunteering as a safety team leader for Central Hope Presbyterian Church here in Little Rock. And I, I'm coming, uh, actually, uh, about a year ago I approached my representative, uh, Representative Firman and uh
Brought the need for this legislation, uh, to be considered because after uh going to some church security training, talking with other people in the church security space, retired FBI agents who are, you know, working in some big churches and one of things became pretty clear to me that there's a huge uh civil liability gap for, for uh people serving in this safety space in Arkansas and there's really, there's
no, no fix for it, uh, at least from my perspective at the time. So I, you know, I went on the hunt and started doing research and I looked at other states, Idaho and Texas in particular where they had some legislation to provide protection for church safety or security volunteers. So, uh, that's kind of why I'm here today and, and I guess the main issue is just to be as succinct as possible.
I have a lot of experience in my life dealing with uh Violence. I, uh, I started off my adult career as an infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division. I fought in Panama, uh, in, in 1989, I served as a patrol officer with the North Little Rock Police Department. And I was an FBI agent, a special agent for a little over 24 years. In those various capacities I've had to uh fight
foreign soldiers, deal with murders, terrorists, foreign agents, just about every type of bad person that you can deal with in order to deal with them in manners that were Safe, uh, in, in ways that try to minimize violence even I, I worked very hard to cultivate a lot of uh skill and and uh And understanding with that threat. And one of the things I know, uh,
About our particular position we're in right now is, is the threat. The threat situation in the United States broadly and in Arkansas and and Metro Little Rock in particular. is really significantly high. Uh, the, the threat for crime and act of violence. And houses of worship, in churches. is significant and the reality is, is all over the United
States right now, just, just go into the news. A lot of it doesn't get hardly publicized because there's so much violence, but people were going in almost daily into churches around the United States. They're assaulting people. They're committing crimes. We're committing murders. And that's simply undisputed. That's, that's the threat background that we're that we're facing. And the reality is in Arkansas that's being confronted. Essentially by
Volunteers. And churches and houses of worship that are coming. Each week volunteering to be The protectors. Against people that don't care if they hurt anybody. They just want to kill and destroy. They don't care about any laws. They don't care about any statutes. They will do whatever and so our threat situation is we have people. Coming to meet these threats.
And they really have minimal uh protection against, uh, you know, uh, civil liability and lawsuits. I mean, uh, there is some, and I understand there is, there is legislation, but it it it's a particular, it's a kind of a particular position. It's a little bit different than just a, a good, good Samaritan. This is a position where you're acting within the scope of being a safety officer or a security officer. Your chart is design ated you as a protector for your
congregation and they've they've Identified you as fulfilling this role and so I believe, and this is falling back on all my years of experience in law enforcement because one of the things I can tell you about being a law enforcement is that Often the first person to be hung out to dry in a situation where you have to use force is a police officer, a deputy, an FBI special agent. And the fact if you use force, it it it doesn't
protect you from people coming to see you and people coming to prosecute and, and, and I know that situation quite well. So what I'm just here to advocate for is what I believe is some additional minimal protections for people who are standing in the gap. Every week and they're prepared to, to face violent, dangerous offenders because I can tell you those, those violent dangerous offenders, they're out there right now, they're profiling churches, they're looking for people who are vulnerable and
they want to kill. And the only thing that may be stopping them is a volunteer security or safety team member. And so I'm here, I'm just a private citizen now, but I'm fulfilling the role, and it's a limited role because right now I'm I am the safety team for my church, and the reason that is is because I've sat down with the elders. And I've explained the uh. The legal vulnerabilities, but because of my law enforcement experience, I'm willing to serve
in that capacity knowing Knowing the dangers that both civilly and and physically that that I I could face. So I'm just here, I'm advocating because there's, there's a profound need for, for this legislation. And I think other states have done it because they understand that this is a very real threat and so um. In short, that's, that's my advocacy for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Is there any questions for Mr. Thompson from the committee?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
25:56
Seeing their questions. Thank you for your testimony, and we have one other individual, Mr. Michael Payton. And if you wouldn't mind just identifying yourself with the record and you're recognized for your comments. Good
Uh Michael
Unverified
26:14
morning. My name is uh Michael Peyton. I am currently a police officer and have been for 14 years, uh, prior to that, I spent approximately 10 years in the Marine Corps. Outside of that, I have the privilege of
being a long-standing member in a uh forming member of our church security team. We've had one over approximately 12 years now. Um We are at a rather large shirt, so we do have several members of our security team, all of which are unpaid and all are volunteer. One of the things that is often addressed is are we covered? If something happens outside of just deadly force, which I understand, um, The immunity for deadly force and acting in defense of
somebody but outside of just deadly force if we hurt somebody, injure somebody from trying to prevent somebody from doing harm to us. Uh we several years ago saw the need for a security team due to the world that we live on, we all know it as a uh mean, awful, and nasty world and bad things happen and why people have their head down praying and worshiping. There need to be people up that are out watching and protecting them, um, so I approached Mr. Furman here to talk about. this bill, um, and here to show my support for this bill and how
it is needed so that those gentlemen or ladies that are stepping up, taking on that role as a security member to protect their family, to protect their friends, to give them a place to worship safely are protected should they have to act in that need. So, and I appreciate your time. Are there any questions from
Speaker 5
27:46
the committee, Mr. Peyton? Singing Nan, thank you
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
27:49
for your comments. Appreciate it. Thank you. resent fireman, are you prepared to, and we
don't have any other members signed to speak for the bill. Representative, are you ready to close for your bill?
Speaker 60
27:59
Yes, in closing, I'd just like to say that I forgot to mention this
Speaker 21
28:05
earlier. Can you hit your mic for us? Thank you. In closing, I just want to say that Texas passed this law in 23 and Idaho passed it last year, so we're not the first state to do this, and with that I'm closed. I appreciate
Speaker 62
28:17
a good vote. Represent environments closed for his bill. What's the wishes of the committee. We
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
28:23
have a Representative Tash makes a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
28:31
So Tash, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to just brief discussion on my own motion to pass. I really believe and I've listened to the testimony. I really think that the civil liability protection and immunity, I think it's already it's already there under state law. And, uh, but we're not going to argue that, but I really believe it's it's already applies. However, I do believe that this bill gives another layer of protection to those security personnel within the churches, so with that in mind, um,
That's the reason I made the motion to pass.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
29:07
Thank you. President of Dalby, you're recognized for discussion on
the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate, um, and I got in here for
most of it, and I'll be a no on this and I'm going to let you know why I'm going to be a no on it is because we have charitable immunity in the state of Arkansas. It's well established. It would cover the situation, and I think that if we start down this path of carving out for uh this group, then we're gonna have to carve out for that group. We're going to have to carve out for another
one and certainly that's going to bubble up into um I think, uh, eventually to the Supreme Court and As to whether, how, how this uh statue would play out and so I think at this point in time
I cannot um Vote in favor of this bill. Any other discussion on
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
29:54
the motion? Seeing their discussion, all in favor, please say aye. all opposed.
Well, the noes have it. I see two
Speaker 72
30:19
hands for roll call. Please call the road. Representative Shepherd Representative Shepherd. Representative Eubanks. Representative Eubanks. Representative Tosh, Representative Tosh, I representing Gonzalez. Representing Gonzalez, I represented Gazaway in the Gazaway I represented Crawford.
Representative Crawford. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney, no. Representative Collins. Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans. Representative Evans. Representing the colors represent McCullough, no. Representative Springer represented Springer? No. Representative Beatty represented Beatty, yes. Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson.
Represented more. Representative Moore, yes. Representative Brown represented Brown, yes. Representative Unresented longer, yes. Representative Richardson. Representative Richardson. Representative Pierce. Representative Pierce, yes. Representative Dalby Representative Dalby, no.
Speaker 52
31:45
Sorry, Representative Firman, your bill has failed. Thank you. Members,
if you'll turn to House Bill 1648 representing Meech recognized come to the end of the table and present your bill. Member 1648.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
32:19
If you'll identify yourself, you're recognized. Oh Good morning colleagues. Representative Steven Meeks, District 42, Greenbrier, uh with me this morning. I have one of our state's many heroes. This is Captain Romilly of the Conway Fire Department bomb squad. He's a part of a group of men and women that when the rest of us are running out of a building, he's part of the group that's running into the building to protect us. So, um, you may, uh, may remember if you're on this
committee last session, I had the opportunity to bring a bill before you related to our Fire department bomb squads and what that bill did is it gave our bomb squad members, the opportunity, the right to be able to protect themselves. This is Part B of that. This is a bill that will allow them to help protect others. Uh, what this bill does is in very limited circumstances. It gives members of a bomb squad, the right to perform an arrest. Let me go over those very limited
circumstances with you, the, the first one is uh If it is related to an explosives-related incident. So a lot of times what happens is whenever there's a threat of a bomb in a building that building is cleared out and typically it is only the bomb squad that goes into that building. And if in the process of searching that building, they should come across a perpetrator right now they don't have any means of detaining or arresting that
perpetrator, which can lead to say bad things and leave it at that. So what this will allow them to do is in that situation to be able to, to perform an arrest until law enforcement can come and take over. The second place where they would be able to make an arrest is if they were assisting with a law enforcement agency, so it'd be at the request of an agency. Uh, so for example, if they were on a call, there was one police officer and one member of the
bomb squad. If that police officer was overwhelmed by, you know, a group of assailants than the member of the bomb squad would be able to assist and, and I would uh say that given the character of these men and women, regardless of what the law said, if a member of law enforcement was in need of help. These guys are going to step up and help regardless of what the law says, and this is just our way of saying that they have the back of law enforcement when needed, that we in the General Assembly will have their, have their back as well.
3rd reason why this is needed is the FBI requires that in order for members of the bomb squad to get secret clearance in order for them to undergo the training that they need to in order to learn the latest techniques related to uh bomb disposals, how bombs are made and so forth. They need to have that arrest authority. So without this, then we would put our men and women who do this at a disadvantage because they would not be able to receive that clearance to
receive that extra necessary training that they need in order to be able to protect not only themselves but also the citizens of the state. The bill does require that they do have to be acting in their capacity. They do have to complete a part-time law enforcement officer course training that's been developed by the Arkansas commission Commission on Law Enforcement Standards, so they will have the proper training that they need in order to be able to complete. any arrests in these very
limited circumstances, so that, that's what the what the bill does, Captain, I don't know if you have anything you'd you'd like to add, um, but otherwise at this point we'd be less if you have
Speaker 89
36:13
anything you'd like to say. I mean I'm bridge and Ramilly Conway Fire Department bomb squad. Um, thank you, Representative Meeks. The only thing that I would like to add is one of the two other things that this bill does is it helps. a jurisdictional issue historically, some bomb squads have been uh deputized by their
local sheriff's department, but that only gives them jurisdiction within that county. Well, we respond well outside of our county. We, we are all regional bomb squads. Um, Another thing is that we're talking about a total of currently 21 uh fire department-based bomb techs in the state, so 21 highly vetted individuals been uh through FBI background checks, majority, if not all, I believe all actually carry secret clearances, um,
we're all trained at the same location at Redson Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, um, at the FBI's hazardous device uh school. So, um, this is a very specific, well vetted group of 21 individuals, um, and, and the other reason that we need to pass this is to give us the qualified immunity that. We need in order to Do our jobs on scene. There's no other entity. There's no other individuals that are gonna be called in the state to
Investigate Explosives incidents, you know, uh, Homemade explosives, things, things of that nature. Um, so We're just asking for that same qualified immunity that we would give any law enforcement officer in the state to go investigate any other crime scene in the state. And I think unless you all have any questions, that's all I have. Representative Richardson, you're recognized for a question.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
38:05
Thank you, Madam Chair. So, forgive my ignorance, but what is the justification or a reasoning behind placing the bomb squad outside the policing force in the first place I've heard both ways. So why here in our state do we choose to place that responsibility outside a police force. They're members of the fire department. So I
Speaker 89
38:32
think if I understand your question correctly, nationwide,
Only 7% of bomb techs are fired-based. It is, it is a law enforcement function, if that is what, what you're getting at. It is, um, every bomb tech in the nation is trained. There's approximately 3500 in the entire nation. We're all trained at the same location. We all do the same vetting process. We all have. To be selected and approved by the FBI to to do this job, no matter what local entity we work for. Arkansas is unique. Uh, whereas half of our bomb squads in the state are fire-based instead of law
enforcement-based. So therein lies our predicament that is Not unheard of anywhere in the nation, but definitely unique to Arkansas, that Arkansas has half of our bomb techs, actually, I think more than half of the actual text numbers, um. or fire-based and so That's it's It's not as simple as being able to just Say, hey, all of our bomb techs in the state of Arkansas are
Speaker 92
39:35
going to be law enforcement. It's it's a decision that's made
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
39:39
on a national level. You need to follow up you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I guess that I appreciate all the background. It was good information, I guess my question still revolves around why we've chosen that separation of responsibility and placing a large percentage of our bomb techs in the fire versus in the actual policing force, and I'm just wondering, is it a division of response?
Speaker 95
40:10
What, what would be a driving factor. To make it more applicable in the in the fire. I think that
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
40:25
when he comes up. Are you asking for someone else to come, Madam Chair, I want to, uh, if it's OK, I've got another witness. Who can maybe help answer this a little bit better. Um, this is and I'll let him introduce himself and if you'll
introduce yourself and we'll let you repeat the question if need be
Speaker 100
40:40
and then you can respond. Yes, ma'am. Todd Carin recently retired Conway bomb squad
Speaker 101
40:46
commander. I was commander for 17 years bomb tech for 20, a member of the Conway Fire Department for 28. And to answer your question, Mr. Richardson, uh, in 01 after 9/11 happened, our first bomb squad commander, John McMahon. Approach the FBI about getting a bomb squad in Conway. The FBI regulates the number of bomb squads in any given city state
in the country. Uh, at that point, they did a, they did a um investigation and determined that Conway did need a bomb squad. In 0302, I'm sorry, 02, the squad was going to be comprised of two Conway Fire Department personnel and two Conway Police Department personnel. At that time, Conway Police Department did not want anything to do with the bomb squad. They were invited. They, they had a seat at the table, but they backed out. So then we put in 4
of our own guys, and I'm, I was the 3rd tech in Conway, John McMahon's passed now, so that, I hope that answers your question. Why in that answers why Conway. Now I don't know why in Arkansas, There are more fire departments did not, but That's why Conway, I can answer that one for sure. Thank you very much for that. I'll hop out and just in case anybody
Speaker 4
42:05
else is. Represents, you're recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
42:09
want to walk back through. I understand about the
bomb squads and I know the role that they play, or at least I think I do, but I believe the protocol representative Meeks, as you're talking about when the bomb squad reason you want them to have this authority is when they enter the building in case the perpetrator, they, I guess have a confrontation or face to face with them, but in my experience, the way that normally works used to work unless it's changed and you can tell me if it has, is that if someone sees something suspicious inside of a building. Obviously the first phone call
they make is going to be the law enforcement. Law enforcement is going to respond. They're gonna, they're going to evacuate that building. They're going to clear everybody out, maybe with the adjoining buildings and then they're going to make a sweep of that building and they're gonna look for anything suspicious. Then if they find a suspicious, uh, package or whatever something that uh then they're going to call the bomb squad. So the ific ation in my opinion, that they may enter a building that would, that building's already
been cleared by law enforcement who has the authority to arrest that individual. So extending that authority to the bomb squad with that understanding of how that protocol works and how it's always worked. I, I'm a little bit confused as to why we would use that as justification for the authority for them to be able to make that arrest when law enforcements already made a sweep and cleared that building and if the perpetrator had still been in there. They would have already taken care of that, would you? Have I ever I misquoted that? Is
Speaker 101
43:49
that not the way it still works. If I may answer your question, um, Typically, yes, sir, but now we're not always going into buildings. I'll give you an example that happened to me. Uh, in England, Arkansas, uh, it was, I would have to look back at the day. It's not been more than 4 months ago. Uh, we were called there was a domestic dispute the night before between a son and his dad. Um, the cop, the police were called out that, that evening. The next day, the sun come into the house.
He got a few belongings and said, Dad, I left you something on the front porch. Dad goes out, it's an artillery round on his front porch. So Pope County called us. We responded. We got there before the police department. The police department was on a domestic dispute, which that will free officers up to go do more important things if they need to be out in the county. Um, so it was myself and another tech on scene for 20 minutes before a deputy arrives. So if that sign had come back,
We had a gun, but we couldn't detain him. We couldn't do anything with him, and I know some people might say citizen's arrest, but that's these guys are more trained than that, you know. I was one for 20 years. We. Yeah, we, we I don't want to get too specific on Conway, but we do, well, in Conway, when there's a bomb threat, we don't respond to bomb threats, but when there's a package, Conway Fire Department bomb squad is the first call after dispatch. Dispatch will call us.
Um, law enforcement is not trained to the level we are on explosives. So we handle all those packages. There's no need in putting law enforcement in, in harm's way needlessly, so. And, and
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
45:35
also they again, they need that authority to get the FBI training, the clearance that they need for that as well. Quick
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
45:45
follow up and I agree and I really appreciate what y'all do. I mean, uh, you know, and, but you made a statement there that law
enforcement was not trained in, in the handling of that explosive, and I couldn't agree with that more, but fire departments are individuals are not trained in the enforcing of the law either as far as making arrests, so, you know, we've always worked together on that. Y'all had your role, law enforcement has theirs. And uh so I've always been one to believe to keep those separate, you know, I don't want to, I never want to have to go in a burning building and put out a fire, but I didn't want the fire department personnel
making arrest too. I felt like that was
my job, so anyway, so, um, yeah, so, so, so just a couple of things on, on that uh
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
46:34
normally, yes, this is just going to be in the very limited circumstances when a law enforcement officer may not be available at, at the time. And before they can do this, they do have to receive a part-time law enforcement officer training, and I think it's pretty closer on the same level as like a reserve deputy, and you can correct me if I'm
wrong on that, but it's 120 hour class through class sir. So it's, it's not like they don't have any training whatsoever. They, they do have, they do have proper training. works anymore, you're
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
47:11
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Commander Cardin, thank you for everything you've done for protecting the people of Conway, Arkansas, and Representative makes a, I do think this is a pretty unique issue, but my question regarding that 120 hour training. Uh, I myself as a part-time class 2 deputy sheriff for Monroe County. I've taken
that exam or that 120 hour course, but is there a state law that precludes a member of a fire department from being a part-time class 2 deputy for their respective
Speaker 100
47:39
county. I believe Captain Ramley addressed that
Speaker 101
47:42
that only gives us jurisdiction within the county. Or would you like to, if
Speaker 89
47:54
we need to. Yes, so that that does reintroduce our jurisdictional issue. The other issue that that
has caused is to Um So Little Rock is Little Rock fire has bomb squad, um, so the City of Little Rock's protected by that bomb squad, um, instead of being deputized by their sheriff's department. They are They have to go through their full law enforcement academy to become a Little Rock police officer. Which is what, 4 months,
something in that. Um, there's a lot of training in that that is not applicable to what they're going to be doing as a bomb tech and the law enforcement authority that they need for that specific role. So it's kind of onerous on the fire department to have to pay the overtime to put somebody through a class for 4 months where they only need 120 hours of it, um. Also sheriff's departments are, it's you're, we're asking the, the way this has worked in the past to put a lot of liability on a sheriff's department for something they have.
Very little connection to, um, so we at one time were deputized by our sheriff's office, um, but They that liability should be on the city. It should be on the entity that houses and maintains that bomb squad. Um, so asking the, the sheriffs in those respective counties to take on that liability isn't isn't fair to them, that liability really ought to be on the city that Decides who's going to be on
Speaker 92
49:34
that bomb squad, if that makes, if that
makes sense. Does that answer your question? Representing Brown, you're recognized for a question.
Speaker 116
49:47
OK. uh, representing Speaker Shepherd, you're recognized. Thank
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
49:49
you, Madam Chair, and this may have been addressed. I was running a bill on another committee, so got in here late. But It appears this is, I guess this is optional. I mean, are we, it says they may make arrests for
violations, but is there any concern If, if a, uh, If someone who was authorized under this does not make an arrest. Does is, will there be liability that would attach to that. I mean, there have been instances where I believe where law enforcement officers have been have been sued for failure to act in certain situations and so I, I'm curious if this is addressed and if the intent strictly is for it to be optional and
basically it's going to be up to that particular individual to make a determination as to whether they
Speaker 118
50:42
want to act and make an arrest or whether they decide, no, I'm not going to, I'm not going to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
50:48
make an arrest in this instance, yeah, and and I think to answer that question, it's to create flexibility
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
50:53
because if a If there's a law enforcement officer present, the uh, you know, the, the, the best possible would be that the law enforcement officer would affect that arrest, and if the law said shall make the arrest, then what you're saying is the bomb squad technician would have to make that arrest and not the law
enforcement officer, so that's to create that, that, you know, flexibility just to say we want the law enforcement officers to do it if they're there, but if they're not there and available, then it just gives these guys the option to do it in, you know. very, very limited circumstance. more you
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
51:26
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Micks, have you contacted, uh, Cluster, the commission on law enforcement standards
and training and do they have a position on this bill?
Speaker 92
51:39
We have, we've been in, we've been in contact with them from the beginning and we actually, uh, when the uh the previous
Speaker 89
51:46
bill, um, had gone through. We had Talk to them and, you know, said, hey, these are the things that we didn't get out of this bill, which is what we're trying to do here. What would you like to see different and we wrote this to match the,
Speaker 92
51:59
the things that they thought needed to be in it, if that. And then it, no, go ahead. So.
Speaker 89
52:09
Are they neutral on this? To my knowledge, they're, they're for it. Um, I haven't. Uh, I can, I can tell you they're aware of it, and they have not given us any pushback on it. I know that. Do you need
Speaker 124
52:28
another follow up representative? I was just wondering if there was a representative of
Clus in the room. I don't see one is there's a representative from class here. I, I, I don't see anyone, sorry we spoke with the
Speaker 89
52:41
sheriff's association, they were they were there, um, we, we've communicated with them a number of times, um, I can tell you, um, Major Moyer with the state police contacted me, said the state police does not have a problem with this. We've talked to the attorney General's office. The governor's office both have given their support on this bill. Yeah, so, so as far as we know,
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
53:01
all the stakeholders are either neutral or supportive of the bill. Representing Tasha recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
53:11
Chair. Whose authority, whose authority would you be working under? Well, what would you get your law enforcement
Speaker 48
53:17
authority who would grant that to you? So that authority would be Codified in
Speaker 89
53:23
this bill if it becomes law. And we would be working under the color of The entity that we work for. So for me it would be Conway Fire Department bomb squad for Fort Smith, who would be Fort Smith Fire Department bomb squad for Little Rock, uh, if they chose to do it this way instead of
Speaker 92
53:41
sending their folks through their full academy, it would be a Little
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
53:49
Rock Fire Department bomb squad. You need a follow up, ma'am. So those entities are willing to accept
a responsibility and grant that authority for law enforcement under under their, under their agencies, is that what you're saying? Tomway
Speaker 89
54:03
is for sure, those other entities would have to Meet all of the qualifications stated in in the this bill in
order to do that. So if they, I mean, if they wanted to, they would have to go through those steps. They could theoretically still have a bomb tech that doesn't go through that course and would
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
54:27
not have the, um, Law enforcement authority. Follow up. So if we, uh, so what do we accomplishing then if we give that authority to some, and others say they don't want it and the, and you've laid out your reasons why you need that authority. How's that really
serve the people of the state if unless everybody is willing to participate in that, and I think they said that's their option. So if it's a pick and choose, I'm just trying to understand why it's necessary that we do that when we've already got law enforcement officers across the state, so and we just don't want to imbibe entities that don't want to pick up that role of having personnel that are law enforcement officers or have the authority to make arrests, I should say.
Speaker 89
55:15
So I'm just having a difficult time understanding that. It wouldn't be mandatory for them. We're not going to force them to do that. They would have to take the steps in order to become law enforcement, um. There, there's been a number of incidents where we don't have law enforcement there. There's a lot of counties that have 1 or 2 deputies available at any given time. Uh, if a suspicious package comes out or an IED is found or something of that nature, and there is anything else going on in that county that law enforcement officers ain't gonna be there. Uh, we
cannot count on having law enforcement on scene. We frequently get calls before and will arrive before law enforcement is there. Um, when we're on a scene and we do have the luxury of having law enforcement there. A lot of times their role is to maintain a perimeter. Uh, they're making sure to the best of their ability that they're keeping the scene safe for us, but when you have one or two law enforcement officers and you've got 5 roads in or 6 entrances to a building.
It's not feasible to expect that they will have 100% success rate, 100% of the time. And what we're, what we're doing currently is Asking Botes to go in. And investigate a crime scene which may take a long time on their own, and I don't know any law enforcement officer anywhere in the state that if you told them You, you have no arrest authority. You have no qualified immunity, and I want you to go investigate this rape or this murder or whatever.
Speaker 135
56:49
Uh, but we'll get a law enforcement that'll be back somewhere. So law enforcement officer maybe,
Speaker 89
56:56
and he might be back somewhere. I don't know any law enforcement officer in the state that wants to take that responsibility and the bomb techs in the
Speaker 92
57:03
state of Arkansas, the fire department bomb techs in the state of Arkansas are in
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
57:09
that exact position now. One more, one more. Thank you, Madam Chair. You
know, to grant law and law enforcement authority to me it's just a high bar. I mean, and,
and, I mean, it's just not something that in my opinion, I've just, I guess I'm this formal question to see if you agree or disagree with me, but it's not something that we just come in here and hand out and say, hey, uh, today we're going to make you and give you the authority to make arrests. I think if you want that and that's your calling in life, and that's what you want to do. Then we've got an, we got a law enforcement. Academy in this state, and people go through that to receive that training to be able to, to receive that authority to
be able to make those arrests and how they make those arrests and what policies and procedures they have to follow. I guess my question would be, if it's that important, and it's that much needed. Are these folks that are wanting this law enforcement authority, are
they willing to go through the law enforcement academy to get that authority like everyone else.
Speaker 89
58:13
Yes, sir. The part-time course is approved by CES and those, those very important things like
Speaker 123
58:20
use of force and the liability issues and all
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
58:26
of that are, are in that. Well, and, and I appreciate your answer, but I really was not
talking about the part-time course. I was talking about a law enforcement academy, I think today, I don't know consist of uh state police is like 20 some weeks, I think sheriff's office municipalities, 13 or 14 weeks best I remember, so that was my question, not part-time, uh, we're talking about somebody that we're giving a lot of
authority to to be able to make a rest and uh so I don't. I'm looking at full-time academy it's that important, is that something that These individuals would be willing to do to be able to gain and seek that authority that I, I personally
hold it extremely high bar and I'm sure you
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
59:10
do too. Sure, yeah, yeah, representative, I agree that this is something that has to be done, uh, you know, in very, very limited circumstances, um,
as the captain said a lot of the training that a normal officer would get is beyond the scope of what the bomb squad technicians are going to need to do. And so It's training outside of what they would need to be able to do their jobs. And so the, the 120 hour training is the training that they would need in order to in very, very limited circumstances. This is something that's not going to happen, you know, every day by, by any means. This is only going
to be in very, very limited circumstances where these men and women are out there by themselves with someone who's potentially harmful to either them. Or to our community and they need to have the ability to place an arrest to protect the citizens of the state, and once a, you know, law enforcement officer gets there, that, you know, perpetrator will be handed over them for for processing. It's just an opportunity for them to be able to, you know,
hold the bad guy until the police officers can arrive, so it's not something that they're going to be doing our, you know, regular basis or willy-nilly, just very, very limited scope to what is needed for them to do their duty to keep our men and women safe. And again, these are highly trained by not only classed by the FBI and by their, you know, of course their, their um local fire department. So this is not just, you know, you or I off the street. Representative Richardson,
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:00:53
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, so I just, a couple of questions, hopefully give me a little latitude. One, I heard you speak on who you haven't heard any pushback from any organization, so the sheriff's association and the chief of police both are OK with this bill. In support of it The sheriff's Association, we met with them at their winter
Speaker 101
1:01:23
conference, uh, November. Uh, they had a few questions. We got them answered. We have not heard from them that
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:01:32
they are for this, OK, um. I would be interested to hear that what their take on this bill is and then separate from that, um, I've heard um Representative makes you you talked a lot about very limited circumstances, very limited circumstances that that this this power would be
executed, but I don't see anything in the bill that restricts. As long as they're in their official capacity, which to me reads that they're at the fire station on duty. Is that an accurate assessment? No,
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:02:10
so, so the bill states on page one that they can only make arrest if it's an explosive related incidents or if they are assisting a law enforcement agency at basically at the request of the agency.
So, uh, the only, the only time they can make an arrest is if there's a bomb or an explosive. Or if
Speaker 140
1:02:33
they're helping, you know, law enforcement. Other than that, that's it. OK, so the, the very
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:02:39
limited based on only in circumstances where either it's bomb related, so any type of call that's bomb related, right, right, exactly, yeah, so
Speaker 138
1:02:47
they're not gonna be making arrests for, you know,
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:02:51
for drugs or speeding or murder or rape or, or anything
else. The only thing they can make arrests for is bombs and They're assisting law enforcement during a time of need. Representasway, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Speaker 138
1:03:07
Chair. Didn't we do this last session? Didn't, didn't you bring this bill last session? So, um, last
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:03:13
session I brought a bill that um it was related to them being able to carry a weapon to defend themselves and in the original version of the bill, we had included something similar to
this, um, but there was some um uh we'll just say dispute among the stakeholders about how we want to work that section out. So we went ahead and pulled that. Part of the bill out so that they could go to the state, have time, go to the stakeholders, work out the details and uh so that's what this is. So since that time they visited with the sheriff, state police, the AG's office, Governor's office to work out the language that's before you.
Speaker 138
1:03:50
I thought you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:03:59
We did pass something last session that gave them the ability to take a firearm to the scene. I remember that seemed to be kind of hotly debated, correct, but that passed, that's the law now, as I recall, the justification for that was they needed to take a firearm, and there was some concern because these are volatile situations where a bomb is involved after all, and they're bringing a firearm into it, um, but the point was, is if they have a firearm, they can hold the uh the bad guy there and kind of keep them there until law enforcement arrives. That was the justification.
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:04:29
And then now you're wanting to expand that even more. Correct. because again they have to have that arrest authority that's a requirement by the FBI to receive their top secret training, and if you do have a perpetrator that they're having to hold for, you know, 1015 minutes for the police to arrive. I mean, the bomb squad technician doesn't need to be holding the gun to the guy's head for, you know, 20 minutes waiting for law enforcement to arrive, right? It's much safer
if he's able to, you know, place handcuffs on the perpetrator. And let that be how we're holding the perpetrator until law enforcement arrives and I don't know if you gentlemen want to add anything to that. Representative Gassway, you recognized for a follow up. Thank
Speaker 4
1:05:14
you, Madam Chair, and this will be my last question. This may have already
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:05:18
been answered, but is this Limited to just these emergency situations where there's a bomb involved and they have to show up and we've already given them the authority to carry a gun and so this makes this allows them to make an arrest and this very
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
1:05:32
limited circumstance, but not in any other circumstance circumstance and generally when law
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:05:38
enforcement's not there. So as they've mentioned, there, there could be a county where there's only 1 or 2 deputies on duty at any given time if you know, 2 or 3 phone calls come in, one involves a bomb, and you've got, you know, whatever. other circumstance going on. These guys can handle the bomb situation if there's somebody that needs to be arrested until law enforcement gets there than they can to allow the deputies
to handle what they need to prior to showing up and as I said, sometimes they get their 1015 minutes before law enforcement and so, yes, very limited circumstances to hold the perpetrator until law enforcement can arrive to then take over. OK, thank you. Yeah, yeah, you got any other questions, members? Seeing no further questions,
the two individuals that we have signed up have already been at the end of the
table. We have no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill representing
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
1:06:32
Meeks recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again, I think we've gone over this in in great detail, but this is uh again, just to give these men and women who are uh just a small fraction of the heroes in our state, the ability to, to do their job to protect the citizens of the state. Um, these men and women, they are highly trained and uh like I said, they have FBI clearance,
um, and they have uh police training and so I would without a doubt, trust them to have this authority to do this in these very, very limited circumstances, and I would just ask that you would help support these men and women in the job they do with support of this bill, and with that I'm closed and would ask for a good vote. Members saying
Meeks is clothes for his. What's the will of the committee. We have
a motion to pass on the table. Any discussion of the motion representing Tas you
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:07:34
recognize for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really appreciate the job y'all do and, and I really do and and uh I've always admired and respected the people I've worked with over the years in the fire department, but, you know, Representative Gas we asked a great question. We granted, we granted authority to the personnel before and now here we are again asking for to extend that authority and I remember a couple of sessions ago or maybe it was the last session where
Uh, we had testimony in a committee where the fire departments were wanting to put blue lights on on the fire trucks and, and now we're back in here today wanting to uh To extend that law enforcement authority to these individuals and to me, and I've said it and I'll say it again. I, I just think if you want to be in law enforcement and that authority is granted to you by the state that, uh, you need to be willing to make that sacrifice just like firefighters do when they go to
the fire academy and bomb techs do when they go to that training just like law enforcement does when they go to that 13 week training at Camden or whether it's 26 week training with the state police. If you want that authority, I think we need to hold that authority at such a high bar that we just don't hand it out in these committees when we decided we're going to run a bill and grant law enforcement authority to individuals. I think that has to be sacred. I think we have to protect it, and I'll be voting no on this bill. Members, any other discussion?
Seeing no further discussion, we do
have a motion to do pass on the table. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit the bill has failed. Senator Bryant, You're recognized come to the table, identify yourself. Members we're going to go to Senate Bill 244, Senate Bill 244, Senator Bryant. You're recognized.
We have an impact assessment. Hang on just a minute, Senator Bryant. Yes, Senate Bill 244.
Right, members, you have the physical impact statement in front of you. I believe everybody has a copy of that. And with that, Senator Bryant, if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:10:42
to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32, and
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:10:49
with me, I have Kristen Clark, I'm the legal director at the administrative office of
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:10:55
the courts. Remember sent 4 244 is a is a way to ensure a common practice
in district courts is reflected in statute. So postpone postponement of judgment is typically used in traffic offenses to where they can levy, levy an imposition and then if you abide by that, they can basically dismiss your case and you you go on your way. This applies that process also into criminal cases that come through the district court because that's the common. practice there is today. And so district judges why they did that and had a lot of a lot of latitude under their administrative rule, this
statute just mirrors what they already do in practice and rule. So with that, I, I would love for uh Ms. Clark to kind
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:11:46
of expand on more on 244. Ms. Clark, you recognized? Thank you, Representative Dolby. Um, This bill is really to clarify and clean up what the procedure should be for court clerks when this particular process is being utilized. One of the things that has happened recently is ACIC
had contacted AOC when you had something that was an a misdemeanor that was supposed to be taken under advisement. What had happened is the clerk had entered a guilty plea and then 6 months later, after all the conditions had been met, they were trying. trying to dismiss that and of course AC icy cold and has questions about why is something that's been reported to us now being dismissed six months later. So this is really clean up. Um, it's currently authorized in Across several statutes as well.
And again, this just clarifies the process that clerks are to follow and also clarifies when that reporting responsibility will exist to ACIC and to driver services. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we
have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill, Senator Bryant, you recognize the clothes for
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:12:58
your bill. I'm closed, Madam Chair. I appreciate it motion and a
good. Member Senator Brown is closed for his bill. We have a motion
to do pass on the made any discussion on the motion to pass. Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. I have it, congratulations you have passed your bill. Members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 260 while we have Senator Bryant here. We also have another impact statement, so we need to pass that one out, so it's up to you. here. OK
Yeah All right, remember you have the physical impact statement in front of you with that, Senator Bryant, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 260. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:14:26
you, members, uh, Senate Bill 260 is, is probably a little bit taller
ask than Centerville 244. Um. As, as the, as I 80 took takes effect. Um I had a lot of conversations with my local
district judges and what I learned is that there is a lot of fines and fees backlogged for collection. And the, the, the body that's kind of started to unpack what do we do with these fines and fees because there are, um,
additional fines and fees that collect and rack up, uh, to delay the payment and to continue the payment. Just continue to expand and rack up and the option to force them to pay or go to jail is not an option because there is a piece of the statute that says just because they don't pay these doesn't mean you can just impose a jail sentence for them. And so, an idea is just this, there is a provision currently in the law where they can seek a civil judgment to attempt to
collect those fines fees and costs for the courts, but it is a very cumbersome, uh, very cumbersome thing to do and a lot of judges just don't take advantage of it because you have to go get their, the defendant's asset list and you know, you keep up to track them down and and occupy the court's time, occupy the defendant's time, and so it's just not a tool that They use. So what Senate Bill 260 does is it gives another tool in the tool bag. To basically attempt to intercept
the defendant's state tax return. So one of the and and it's not just carte blanche, they can't just say we're going to issue an order and do it. The order has to follow the existing guidelines in 260 D and F. Which they have to, the defendant has to knowingly have failed to abide by the terms and then there's no other mitigating factors that would basically dissuade the judge from issuing an order to intercept their tax return, and if those two conditions aren't met, the judge can issue an order to the state
and intercept that person's tax returns. Now a question was asked down on the Senate side about priority of claims. There are existing statutes that give priority to other actions such as child support or restitution of victims' crimes. If there are none of those, then it falls down into 26, 36, 314, a priority of claims, which is ultimately first come, first serve until another action supersedes the request of the judge. So with that, that is my, my ask
of this committee to give the judge another tool in the tool bag to attempt to collect the millions and millions of dollars in backlog of our defendants representing Collins, you're recognized for
a question. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:17:13
let me kind of tell you my concern and see if you can give me your response to it. So by and large these are going to be people who don't have a lot of money. Obviously they don't have the money to pay the fines, fees, and costs that are outstanding or that at least
they haven't, um, but they are also kind of by definition, people who are working, so they've been paying in to state income tax over the previous year and then they have a refund that comes back to them. What I'm concerned about is the only way they're going to get the money to pay these 5 fees and costs is working and are we going to by doing this dissuade them from working or dissuade them from paying taxes and being on the books. I think a lot of people, you know, might have the opportunity to go off the books
and not even pay in to the system. So what, what about that? I mean, I, I don't want to further put people on a catch-22 where by doing this, we've actually, you know, created a disincentive to work or pay taxes in in in that way, um, get them out of the hole that they're
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:18:21
in. I, I would say to that this is not a first stop. This, this
is after all other means have been exhausted, and as I've sat in district courts and I've seen the frustration on the judge
trying to get compliance, not wanting to send them to a jail on a new offense, but imposing an additional fine when they've got additional fines collect that need to be collected, not wanting to put an imposition on the jail because our jail is full and can't take misdemeanors. It's one of those, you know. You look at those defendants and, and you want to have empathy on them. You want them to get them to stop breaking the law. They have a $1000 iPhone. They, they're wearing high dollar shoes, and the judge just
sees that nothing is getting through to them. And so having a tool in the tool bag to say I'm going to collect the money that that has been withheld that is due back to you to satisfy these, uh, current fines and fees and, and get you back on track. I think is a very persuasive tool to say I can no longer just circumvent the ask of the court and just continue to break the law and rack up fines and fees because there is no other alternative currently in the system to make them comply.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:19:36
Thank you. I appreciate your concern to this, and I know, I know it's a genuine
concern. I just don't want to create a situation of, you know, counter to what we're trying to
do, but I appreciate that. Gasway, you recognized
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:19:49
for a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. And just a couple of questions. Seems like a bill like this came through. Maybe last session or a session ago, but I could be mistaking it for one about tax intercepts of child support. Do we already do this
for child support. I, I, not to my knowledge, it
wasn't, wasn't my bill. OK, maybe that was something else. You don't know if we already do it with regard to somebody
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:20:15
who was back child support. I do not know. I believe we've possibly do, um. Just in conversations, there, there was provisions
in separate state laws to capture for child support and other, other activities. OK, yeah, I think
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:27
I was opposed to that one too, but uh the second part of my question. Sorry The Second part of my question has to do with the legal
analysis that's on the fiscal impact statement. That it says this would benefit from an amendment on line 30 to state that the court may intercept a defendant's state income tax refund. Rather than the state, the defendant's state income tax return, and there is a clear difference between an income tax return and an income tax refund. So, uh, have you, were you aware of that? Have you
Speaker 156
1:21:02
thought about that? I, I was not aware. That's the first time I've seen that.
That would be on page 1 line
30. And guys way your question should that be refund and not return. I think that's the question in
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:21:32
other areas of existing code, it uses the word return, so I imagine the BR attorneys just attempted to match existing. Existing code in the procedures
identified under 54206 D through F. It does state return and not refund, so. There's other, I guess it would be other errors in the code
if that was a fact.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:22:00
Representing Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and, you know, in the bill it references what is already in code related to the recovery of restitution through this process. Do we know, uh, how much has been
maybe is recovered on an annual basis. By intercepting income tax refunds. I mean, is this something that's widely used? Is it widely effective or is it, do we, do we have any information as to what the. What the, the level of success has been, uh, I, when
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:22:34
I interface with DFNA about this process. They said there
there was a process and they did just send me the original language of a money judgment and civil action, but they didn't have very little or any data to
indicate that it was used very often when I spoke to several district judges. They were obviously supportive of this tool in their tool bag, uh, love the idea of it, because that would indicate to me that they probably. do the current practice because it's just
so cumbersome. Representing McCulley, recognize for question. Thank you, Madam Chair. If, um, someone is filing jointly with
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:23:20
I believe it would be because it's coming to the defendant and they'll intercept what is coming
to the defendant's tax return as jointly staffed because that is one considered one individual in the tax code,
Speaker 180
1:23:30
I guess my follow up, sorry. Um, I guess my concern with that is just that there could be a family and a spouse that are trying to to do the best they can and everything, and then that's a form of income, and they may already be losing what that, uh, person is out there working to get and everything that would affect not just the person that committed the crime,
but also that person's family. Would you agree? Yeah,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:23:54
and the other provisions of code that allow the intercept don't distinguish between that as well, so it's just keeping in line with the code. Any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, we have no one who
has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Bright, he recognized clothes for your bill committee. I appreciate the conversation.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:24:15
I really do. I think as we as we unpack it in the 80 and its all in district courts and we worked
to see what future holds for trying to get the recovery of the pies and fees due to the court to definitely impact the operation of the courts, and it funds the courts and it takes the burden off of our Taxpayers, if we can get defendants to actually pay their fines and fees. This is a good tool in the toolbox. So with that, I would appreciate a motion to Senator
Bryant has closed for a spill, have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. All
opposed say no. But I have it, congratulations, you have passed your bill. Representing Clowney. You're recognized
to go to the end of the table, members were turning to House Bill 1641. Represent clowning, you get to the end of the table, you
are. And if you'll identify your guests that you have with you.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:25:31
Thank you, Madam Chair. I've brought a former constituent with me to help present this bill. Go ahead
Erin Wadley
Unverified
1:25:36
and identify yourself on the record. Hi, good morning. My name is Erin Wadley. Welcome, Representative
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:25:42
Clowney. You're recognized to present House Bill 1641. Thank you, and I know we've been here a while. We'll try to keep this short, but this bill arose, um, when Erin contacted me while she was in law school at the UFA, and she'll explain her story in a moment, but basically there was nothing in our code that caught us up with current technology. In other words, um, folks who
are being tracked without their consent or knowledge, and there wasn't really a way A clear way for law enforcement to get at that problem. So, um, I just, I think probably we'll turn it over to Erin to tell her story and then I'll explain a little bit about what this
Speaker 190
1:26:19
bill does. Hi, thank you so much for having me and thank you so
Speaker 191
1:26:23
much for your work on this. In 2019, I was driving my car and I went over a speed bump and heard a scratching, screeching sound,
and the next day I took my car to get it checked out and if you knew the way I drive, you'd probably think that it was an issue with my car, but, um, as it was checked out and they took a look at it, to my shock, I was handed a tracking device that had been attached to the bottom of my car. I was 24 years old and my abusive controlling ex-boyfriend had placed it there so that he could follow my every move. I'll never forget those feelings of shock and fear and helplessness.
In that moment I knew that I had a tracking device on my car, sending my every movement and location to him without my consent. Thank God I found the device and was able to remove it for for something worse could happen, um, escalating to things that were beyond my control and preventing me from being harmed further. It was frightening and when I needed protection and sought protection through lawful means. There wasn't any to be had. This propelled me to attend law
school, where I researched this issue and I published my article detailing this research in the Arkansas Law Review in the Arkansas law notes. I never thought that something like this would happen to me. I just knew that this is a law that we needed because of a result of what I have experienced. And it brought me to today to share my story in front of you to enact change for Arkansas. So thank you so much for allowing me to share my story in allowing me to be before you,
and I just want to say thank you so much for being agents of change who have the ability to not only protect me, but to protect
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:28:13
the entire state of Arkansas. And committee members to address the problem that Aaron so eloquently just set out. We looked at a lot of other states, states are catching up with the technology. There are 27 other states currently that are that have something on the books to address this problem the way that we chose to address it was to include it in Arkansas's harassment code. So worked on prosecutors with this, um, addressed some of the concerns that, um, defense attorneys had
Speaker 116
1:28:35
as well, and I'm happy to answer any questions from the committee on it. Representative Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I'm supportive of the bill. I just, I do have a question just to make sure I'm, uh, understanding, um. It correctly, I, so
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:28:52
the bill talks about a tracking device and using it to track a person without their consent. Of course, we all essentially have tracking devices with us right now, which is our cell phones,
and there are numerous apps that uh Potentially even, even I think Snapchat has where you can, you can see where your friends are, um, other, other things if you were sharing a maybe an iPhone account that you can share your location. I would assume that you, you can turn your locations off, you can obviously remove those apps. I would assume that that if by chance someone still had access
to that, that would not necessarily be without their consent because ultimately that person can can turn off their locations, could remove their, the app from their phone, um, but am I thinking about that correctly, uh, that, that, that, uh, I mean, clearly I, I don't. money by using those for the purpose of, of harassing, but I'm also thinking about as we've heard in this committee before, particularly in domestic cases, uh, individuals can use certain
statutes to try to to try to gain leverage on individuals and so I just want to make sure that we're, that we're thinking through what, what, how those situations would be handled. Yeah, thank you
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:30:17
for that, Shepherd, and if I don't answer the question, please ask it again because I want to make sure that I understand it. Um, we These are exactly the kinds of issues that we work through with both sides to come up with language and um the situations that you're talking about, I think downloading an app or or you know, sharing location, those types of things, I think would count as giving consent and so revoking those would be taking that consent away, yeah.
Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have one individual who signed up to speak for, oh, I'm sorry. Represent Gassway, you got to be
Speaker 82
1:30:51
quicker, and I'm moving. We got a lot to go. You're recognized. Not a
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:30:57
problem. Thank you, Madam Chair. No problem. Uh, so, I think the issue that
There may be with the bill is this language without good
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:31:11
cause. What exactly does that mean? So that language without good cause and I, I, this is one of those instances where I hate to not have the full section of code in front of us that this comes from, but that good cause language is in the existing harassment statute. That's what prosecutors use to decide whether other actions are, you know, that fall within that statute are an offense or not without good cause, I think for this purpose would mean the same thing that it has for prosecutors throughout. There are lots of good reasons why you may
want to track somebody, right, um, without their consent, for instance, um, if you've got a child who you want to, you know, know their whereabouts. They're going to school or they're getting off the bus and you want to make sure that you can keep an eye on them. I mean, that's a good cause and so we just wanted to line this up with the existing portions of the harassment code that make sure that we are not addressing anything, um, that is defensible, right, for which there is good cause. It's hard to put exactly into statute, the language that we want to make it as narrowly tailored as we would like, I
think, because part of the issue is that we need to give prosecutors some discretion. We need to leave it a little bit open so that they can utilize the statute to
Speaker 42
1:32:22
protect people to the fullest extent. Representing Tasha recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative, I just want to be
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:32:28
sure we this apply like to a private investigator that had been hired and it's and that's, you know, that's their
livelihood with this, would this be a resource or something to be taken away from them. Thank you, Representative Tosh. Another reason
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:32:39
why I wish we had the full code in front of us. The
section after this goes um goes into folks for whom it is an affirmative defense from from these kinds of charges that includes law enforcement and exactly
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:32:52
the kind of you're talking about. OK, good. That was my follow
up law enforcement so thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have one individual, Jimmy Calvin. Calvin
If you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to speak on
Speaker 194
1:33:23
the bill. Yes, ma'am, Jimmy Arkansas First News I'm representing myself as a citizen and uh I when I read this bill, I got really excited because unfortunately, what this young lady's been through, I've dealt with these cases when people reach out to me for help. And I just want to go over one instance and then address what Representative Tosh says far as private investigators. This one particular instance of many that I've dealt with was a young lady
who in a situation with poor Aaron here, uh, her boyfriend they had broke up. And for several months after that occasion, she kept receiving calls and texts from this guy. With things like, hey, Why were you here last night at 9:15. You know, I saw you last night. I knew you were at this party. This new guy you're dating, I don't like him. Things like that, she went through this for about a 3 month
period that just literally terrorized her. She couldn't sleep. She couldn't eat. I mean, she was scared to death. Her family was scared to death. So, uh, we've got a lot of dads and moms in here, so let's put yourself in that position. To, as a parent of someone going through that. I can tell you he's a daddy, you know, you wouldn't have to be worried about this boy and what he was doing, you would see me on Channel 4. For taking care of it. And so this law would help prevent that and go a long way in doing that and protecting especially young
ladies that we have in these situations. And, and I just want to be brief. I would say as far as private investigators go. And, and I'm not meaning this ugly, but if you're making a living tracking people without their consent because somebody, because let's put it to you this way. Say instead of this guy putting a tracking device on her vehicle. Or in my situation with this young lady, what they hired. A private detective to track her. Her every move without her consent, the same thing. So if
you're making a living tracking people without their consent. You need to go find another job. And uh so I would just close with that and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. I would just say again, this is a long overdue bill and I'm so glad that's being brought. Members, are there any
questions? Seeing no questions, thank you for being here today. Representing Clowney,
you're recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. I'm closed for the bill, and I make a motion. Do you pass. Members, we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion
of the motion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. I have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Members, if you'll turn to House Bill 1644. We'll take up 1644. I'll ask Representative Underwood to take over.
With the chair's permission, I'll ask Kristen Clark from AOC to sit
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:36:35
here with me. You're recognized whenever
you're ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Carol Dolby District 100, which is Texarkana, member 1644. Is a bill to clarify the ability of a retired judge to serve as
a special judge immediately upon retirement. There had been a question in the law as to how long they would have to wait and as you well know, with the new
amendment that has taken place and we now have our district judges who are state district judges. There will be a need for there to be some special judges, and so all this bill does is allow them upon their retirement that they're now would be immediately eligible to serve as a special judge and that that would go back to January 1st of this year. Kristen, do you have anything you want to add? be happy
to answer any questions. Are there any questions from the committee?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:37:33
Seeing the questions, we don't have anybody signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Dalby, are you prepared to close
for bill? I am close for my bill and make a
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:37:41
motion to do pass. We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion all in favor, please say aye. I opposed. The eyes have it. Congratulations,
you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. uh, Mr. Chair, uh, may I proceed with House Bill 1661. Yes, you're. Once again, Carol Darby, state
representative District 100 members House Bill 1661 is the bill that all of y'all have
worked on at some point over the those who are holdovers from the, uh, last term. This is the district court bill that we had meeting after meeting on heard from all the stakeholders and all of that. And as you will recall, um, October 1st of this past year, we had to, uh, provide our final report of which we did, and
there are a number of things within that final report dealing with, uh, the district judges and the fact that Amendment 80 has now come to fruition after 25 years, um, and this is what this bill does very quickly and I'll be happy to answer any questions before I get started, I want to let, let you know that all the stakeholders are on board. We have had numerous meetings with obviously AOC, the municipal League, the county association and the district Judges
Association and everybody is supportive of this bill, certainly within this bill there are that would like something a little maybe a little something else here and another group of little something else
there. But this is the bill that everybody who's agreed to feels like it's the best bill going forward for our district court now that they have all become state district courts. So with that, there were several things that were very important to this committee,
as you recall we voted on things that were important to us. One was that the district judge's salaries
would all be paid by the state because they are state district judges, and they, there was a shortage of about $4 million. There is Money in the constitutional officers fund to cover that, so they're in the first section of this bill, it is now saying definitively that the state is going to pay the salaries of the state district judges. That's going to take a burden off of our cities and counties. Just for example, in some cities and counties because they're sharing
district judges, uh, the county may be responsible for upwards to $25,000 to that district judges. salary and the city may be responsible for 25,000 or so. So it's going to take that burden off of our cities and counties, and I see Mr. Wilkinson's here. I think they're very pleased with that. I I have seen the county association folks here, and I think they're very pleased. That's going to take a burden off of our cities and counties and we do have the money in our, in our constitutional officers fund, so
that's not a problem. What was there was just a gap in there that wasn't addressed in earlier. Uh, statutes. So that is being addressed. That's, that is, uh, a key component. Another section you will recall in our report, we colloquially within our committee called them fifty-fifty courts. Um, what has happened and you're well aware of it because we had audit and we've had everybody come to the table and talk about it. Uh, I
believe it was back in 1993. Am I correct? 95, I was close. 1995 was the last time that this issue has been addressed. And in 1995, the population of the state was vastly different than maybe it is now. It's shifted. And so what has happened from 19, well, from the 1995 law, uh, fines, fees, and what else, just find some fees course cost, fines, fees, court costs, a
portion of that would have to be sent to the state, a portion of it was retained by the city or county for the function of that court. To give you a prime example up in Farmington. 1996, I don't think anybody thought Farmington was going to be the size that Farmington is today. We know the population growth in that area under the 1996 law, the Farmington District Court since not sent 90% of what they collected to the state and only kept 10%. So
It's not workable for Farmington. On the far other end you actually have a few district, a few areas in the state where they send nothing to the state and keep it all. Well, under this bill, every quarter or every district in the state, city and county will send 50% to the state, keep 50%. Now there's going to be some winners and losers immediately, but over time, it's going to even out
because remember they're no longer going to be paying any portion of the district judge's salaries, so that's going to even out. The next portion that we were taught, remember there were 5 points that we were really interested. The third point we're really interested in was the installment fee. We had a lot of discussion about somebody who can't pay their fines or fees, then they put get put on an installment plan and the installment plan was $10 a month and that could add up. You could have
$250 fine and that, and by the time you had the installment fee, it would take years to get it done, but remember that installment fees paying for under the statute. The court automation fund is where that would go. Now that $10 you'll recall part of it, part of it stayed with the counties or cities. Part of it came to the state. Part of it went to AOC. Under this bill, we couldn't just get rid of the $10
fee, but we've dropped that $10 fee down to $7.50 and we have put a cap on it instead of it being attached forever and always for the next however long it takes. to pay off, um, it would be 90, yeah, 90 payments, 90 payments max $90. I've got so much right, yeah, $90 or 12 months. And Additionally, there is a sunset
clause in there because you will recall the Supreme Court is um Transitioning the courts where they'll be able to go on to that court system for case management and all of that. They're working on that. We've allotted the money for it. Eventually, the courts will all be on that system. It's not going to cost them to be on that system, so we anticipate that that installment fee will start getting less and less as time goes, and with
that, we put a sunset in hopes that by 2031, they'll all be Transitioned and the installment fee will go away. Certainly if it looks like in 2 years or 4 years that there still needs to be some money left in there, we can come back and tweak that. But our goal is to take that burden off of people who really probably can't afford that. That's why they're paying installment fee, but quite frankly, remember that was a $14
million hit and we couldn't just go to zero. So we've really made some efforts. The other key thing within that particular deal, we've expanded a little bit as to um what that installment fee fund can be used for. Remember right now, it's strictly for automation, but we, we heard a lot about courtroom. Security And the need for courtroom security and district courts, for those of you who have not been involved much with district courts or you may be new to this committee and hadn't heard all
of this, our district courts are on the front lines a lot of time of, of folks that um Maybe be mad. They may be dealing with protective orders, what you may be setting bonds or things like that and so there was a real need in our cities and counties needed uh some flexibility to help with courtroom security. So we've expanded that so that money can also be used courtroom security. You'll recall in the audits, uh,
that the audit gave us, uh, There are some fun balances in there. Some of these courts have a million dollars in their fund balance. Some have 0, so we're just trying to find a way
to work that out and see how that is. Another portion of this bill for those of you who have been around a while, you know that every year I have that privilege of of filing that big old bill of setting the compensation for the clerks.
And then I'll set it out on my
desk and say make your changes, you know, and it, well, quite frankly, we don't need to be doing that. Setting the fee of the clerks is not, they're not state employees. going to be left up to the cities and counties to set what they're going to pay their clerks, and if they have an agreement
to split that cost, let's let them work on that. So we have struck that language. We're repealing all of the old language, uh, on the
old district court stuff. So if you see municipalities or whatever,
all of that, and we're tightening it up, we're bringing it alive with, um, what our task force came up with. That's it in a nutshell, there's gonna be a couple of other little companion bills that will come along, uh, with this, but this is, this is the main one from our task force and with that, I have Christian here and I see. John Wilkerson's here. I see Taylor Hanford from Association of Counties. Uh, Tommy Wren was here earlier,
but we've had all of these folks, we've met hours on end, um, trying to come to this, and this is what we present to you today. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Are
Speaker 5
1:48:13
there any questions from the committee? Herbertson Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:48:17
you recognize us. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm sorry I may have missed this, um,
remind me about the $15 court technology fee being added here for criminal traffic cases, um, just reorient me to that place.
Section 13 on page. 25. OK Um, Kristen Clark,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:48:38
I'm the director of the Legal Services Division at the administrative Office of the courts. Thank you for the question. Uh, currently there's a $15 technology fee that is in place for all kinds of case tops at the both of our appellate courts and also in circuit court and district court, with the exception of criminal and traffic cases. Uh, what this is doing is just
extending that $15 fee now tori criminal and traffic cases in hopes to offset some of the losses in revenue that the judicial fine enhancement Collection Fund might see by reducing the installment payment fee to the 750 and limiting it to the 12 months or $90 max. Follow
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:49:22
up, please. You're recognized. Thank you. So are they, is the um you may have some numbers that would be helpful, but is the idea that they're going to approximately
offset each other and then we're not going to have any general revenue or other revenue, it's all still going to be collected at the fee and fine level. Quite
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:49:43
frankly, we don't know what the impact of these reforms is going to be at this point, um, moving to 50/50 quarts across the state. We're just going to have to wait and see, but we know also with the limitation on that installment fee that it's going to have an impact on a number of, well, the AOJ fund is I know you and I have talked about. So, this is uh a way to minimize that until
we can come back and see what the impact of those reforms
Speaker 154
1:50:08
will be in the next session. So we hope so. We hope that this is going to level out,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:50:14
but We're just going to have to wait and see. And one more follow up if I may, um, but it, it is correct that there's not anticipated to be any additional general revenue to pay for the new um assumptions of that's right. OK, thanks. I mean, in
a perfect world, representative Collins, we wouldn't be funding the court system off the backs of people who come to the court system.
But we don't have a perfect world, and
this is what we're having to work around as you and I've had many conversations in that regard. Any other
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:50:45
questions from the committee? Seeing none. We don't have anybody to sign up to speak for or against. Representative WU Prepared to
close for a bill. I am prepared close for the bill. Members of this committee who were on the committee last term and served on the task force, um, I want to personally thank you for the many hours that you
have put in and the uh times that you have stayed to work with in small groups on this. It's been a Herculan task to say the least, and I would be the first to say this is not a perfect bill, but I think we are so far down the road than where we were to. years ago when we started the task force looking at the transition of district courts to state district courts, and I am proud of the work that this committee did over the last interim and with that, I'm
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:51:37
closed and make a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass on the on the table. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed. I have it congratulation represent allli passed your
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:51:54
committee. I'm gonna turn it back to Chairwomanalbi, uh, Representative Gazaway, I think
you have a series of bills. Would you like to go ahead and get prepared for that? Members never fear I have let representing Galway, no, we're going until 12:15, so then we will, we will be done at that point. I'm gonna let him call out his bill numbers. He has promised me he is quick. We shall see. So which bill would you like to start with? Would you like to just start at the top with 1563. Is that good with you? Yes, thank you, madam. OK, members,
let's turn to House Bill 1563 representing Gasway you recognize and we have
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:52:48
an impact statement. Thank you, Madam Chair of State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. This bill simply adds knowingly exposing another person to fentanyl in the first degree to the restricted release felony list. As many of you recall, when we passed the Protect Arkansas Act. We created essentially 4 categories of release eligibility for various offenses. We had the 100%. crimes, if you will, and that
was 18, uh, crimes for which there was no release eligibility, ineligible for early release. Then we have the 85% category, which is the restricted release felonies, and so this simply adds knowingly exposing another person to fentanyl in the first degree, which is a bill that we passed last session. We simply make that offense part of the restricted release felonies, which means a person must serve 85% of their time, whatever they're sentenced to. Uh, before they'll be eligible for early release. That's all the bill does. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:53:45
Representing colleges are recognized for a question. I just wondering, so was this just left off or was it new, um, or, or it doesn't look like it's being taken off of any other list, so is this just a clean up
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:53:59
or what is this? It is what happened is we were running the ProTE Act, the Fentanyl Enforcement Accountability
Act and then knowingly exposing another person to fentanyl, uh, we're all running last session at the same time, and we had language in the fentanyl enforcement Accountability Act
that classified it should theE Act pass, which of course it did. We didn't have that language and the knowingly exposing another person to fentanyl, so it didn't get put into these categories, so we're simply putting it into one of the categories. Thank
you. Members, any other questions? We have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill representing Gasaway. You recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:54:36
closed for the bill. Make a motion to pass. Members,
we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say
aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill referencing Gasway with that, let's move on to the next one, which will
be House Bill 1579. Members turned to House Bill 1579. Thank you, Madam Chair,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:55:03
State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. A What this bill essentially does is it says for a person who is incarcerated, uh, they shall not be eligible for a reassessment if they're uh.
Sex offender or sexually dangerous person, they're not eligible for a reassessment until they're released from incarceration. The point is we know many of these inmates are there for the next 25 or 30 years. And I think under the existing law, they're eligible for a reassessment every 5 years, but if we know that they're not getting out for 30 years, why do we need to keep reassessing people, uh, every 5 years, this is at the request of the Department of Corrections, who says that this, you know, quite frankly is a waste of their time and
resources to assess people who it makes no difference for who are not going to be getting out anytime soon. So that's all the bill does, and I'm happy to
answer any questions. Members, any questions? Seeing the questions, we did have one individual who signed up, Mr. Rosen. used to it. Let's get that on the record. We have resolved an issue. Um, we have no one else who signed up. So Representative Gasaway, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the
bill. I'll make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed House Bill 1579. Members,
Speaker 82
1:56:37
let's turn to House Bill 1603. House Bill 1603 represented Galway, you recognize. Thank you, Madam Chair, State Representative Jimmy Gazaway,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:56:49
District 31. I, well, I thought I had the Association of Counties and several county clerks here, but maybe they, I think they went to lunch. I think they left on us. Well, that's all right. I think I can handle it. Uh, what this bill does, this was at the request of the Association of Counties and the circuit clerks. When they accept fine When they accept installment payments from a criminal defendant currently the way the law says that those payments are
applied are, and it says in this order, if court costs, restitution, and fines are fully paid, and we're simply changing that to make the allocation of when the money is paid, it goes to restitution, then court costs, then fines. This is a request of the Association of Counties. It's a request of the circuit clerks. It'll help them keep track of these payments easier and know how to apply them appropriately. That's all the bill does. I'm happy to answer any questions members, are there any questions?
Seeing your questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:57:57
I'm closed for the bill. I'll make a motion to
pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Representing Gasway and members
of the committee, let's turn to House Bill 1624. House Bill 1624, you're recognized
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:58:30
to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. This is a bill that I brought last session the request of District judges Who want to ensure that there are judges who are represented on a county law library board. And so, basically what the bill
does is it says that each county has a county law library board. The county judge makes appointments to the law library board, and this says that among all of the other individuals who may be appointed to serve on a county law library board. It shout that board shall also include one circuit judge who either lives in the jurisdiction or presides over court in that jurisdiction and one district court judge who either lives in that jurisdiction or presides over a court in that jurisdiction. I think we can all acknowledge that it would be an
important thing to have judges represented on the county law library board saying that, uh, you know, they deal with many of the people who use the county law library. A lot of times that's indigent folks who don't have access to legal research and when they need. they go to the county law library and so we need to make sure that judges are adequately represented on that board and ensuring that people have the resources that they need access to. So that's all the bill does. We actually passed this last session that made it to the Senate, and then we ran out of time in the Senate before it could pass the Senate, so.
Speaker 114
1:59:53
Hopefully we can get it through this time. members you've
heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any discussion? I mean, not discussion, any questions, sorry. Seeing no questions. We have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill representing guess what you recognized clothes
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:00:08
for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed to the
bill. Make a motion to pass, members, so we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations you have passed House Bill 1624.
Members, let's turn to House Bill 1628 representing Gazaway, you're recognized to present House Bill 1628. Thank you, Madam
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:00:33
Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gazaway, District 31. This is a bill that the prosecuting attorneys Association. Brought to me this was at a request of a prosecutor. And basically what the bill does is it relates to, uh, no contact orders following a conviction, and it simply adds to the list of offenses for
which, uh, a court can grant an extended post-conviction no contact order. There are a number of offenses that are listed that give judges the authority to grant these extended no contact orders. It already had rape and sexual assault in the first degree. We're simply adding sexual assault in the second degree to that list of offenses for which a judge can order an extended no contact order. I can't see any reason why. We wouldn't want to do
that. And so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Members, are there any questions?
Seeing no questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill, representing Gassway, you're recognized
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
2:01:34
clothes for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm close
to the bill. I make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have it.
Congratulations, you have passed your bill. That's that's your list and then record time we're proud of you.
All right, thank you. Thank you, members, thank you for uh your diligence this morning. We had a
lot to do, but that's just the nature of the session at this point in time. Here's your list for Tuesday and I will send it out, but for anybody that keeps up with this committee, we will be hearing House Bill. 1434 House Bill 1504 House Bill 1551, House Bill 1611 House Bill 1615, House Bill 1629 and House Bill 1630. Watch your text messages that subject to change,
Unknown speaker
2:02:29
but right now that's what we have lined up. With that, I hope
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1434 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE OR COURSE OF CONTROL PRESENT.
HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS.
HB1504 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF MANUFACTURING, MODIFYING, SELLING, TRANSFERRING, OR OPERATING A ROBOTIC DEVICE OR AN UNCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT IS EQUIPPED OR MOUNTED WITH A WEAPON.
HB1551 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CRIMINAL ABORTION; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF COERCED CRIMINAL ABORTION BY MEANS OF FRAUD.
HB1563 Gazaway TO ADD A FELONY OFFENSE THAT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF RESTRICTED RELEASE FELONY WITH RESPECT TO RELEASE ELIGIBILITY AND PROCEDURES FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2025.
HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON.
HB1178 R. Scott Richardson CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUMS COLLECTED BY DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES.
HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEER SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.
HB1579 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEX OFFENDER REASSESSMENT; AND TO PROHIBIT AN INCARCERATED PERSON FROM BEING ELIGIBLE FOR RISK LEVEL REASSESSMENT.
HB1603 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS BY A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT IN CIRCUIT COURT.
HB1611 Gonzales TO CREATE THE GAME FOWL FARM REGISTRATION AND PRESERVATION ACT; TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.
HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS.
HB1628 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING AN EXTENDED POST-CONVICTION NO CONTACT ORDER; AND TO ADD SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE SECOND DEGREE TO THE OFFENSES FOR WHICH A COURT MAY ISSUE AN EXTENDED POST-CONVICTION NO CONTACT ORDER.
HB1629 Gazaway TO PERMIT A RETIRING PROSECUTING ATTORNEY TO BE AWARDED HIS OR HER SERVICE FIREARM UPON RETIREMENT.
HB1630 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING CAPITAL MURDER; AND TO INCLUDE A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER.
SB244 J. Bryant CONCERNING POSTPONEMENT OF JUDGMENT IN DISTRICT COURT; AND TO PERMIT A SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE IN CERTAIN DISTRICT COURT CASES.b
SB260 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF COURT FINES, FEES, OR COSTS AFTER DEFAULT.
HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT.
HB1644 Dalby CONCERNING THE COMPENSATION OF A RETIRED JUDGE APPOINTED AS A SPECIAL JUDGE; TO CLARIFY THAT A RETIRED JUDGE MAY SERVE AS A SPECIAL JUDGE IMMEDIATELY UPON RETIREMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1648 S. Meeks TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS; TO ALLOW A MEMBER OF A MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENT BOMB SQUAD TO MAKE ARRESTS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
HB1661 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING STATE DISTRICT COURTS; TO ELIMINATE THE OBLIGATION OF CITIES AND COUNTIES TO PAY THE SALARIES OF STATE DISTRICT COURT JUDGES; AND TO AMEND THE LAWS CONCERNING DISTRICT COURT CLERKS.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.
HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
HB1668 Bentley TO CREATE THE VULNERABLE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT; AND TO AUTHORIZE A CIVIL ACTION FOR SOCIAL TRANSITIONING AND CASTRATION, STERILIZATION, OR MUTILATION OF A MINOR.
HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO ALLOW FOR INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Mar 6, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Speaker 5
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 12
Larry Page
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 24
Speaker 20
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 32
Speaker 36
Speaker 38
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 42
Speaker 45
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 52
Michael Thompson
Unverified
Uh Michael
Unverified
Speaker 60
Speaker 62
Speaker 72
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 89
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 92
Speaker 95
Speaker 100
Speaker 101
Speaker 4
Speaker 112
Speaker 116
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 118
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 124
Speaker 48
Speaker 135
Speaker 123
Speaker 140
Speaker 138
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 156
Speaker 180
Erin Wadley
Unverified
Speaker 190
Speaker 191
Speaker 82
Speaker 194
Speaker 154
Speaker 114